manqiangrexue
Brigadier
But if it's in the same generation as the F119 and using better materials than the F119, wouldn't you conclude that it could likely exceed the F119?
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
I said both F135 and 119. You can try to cherrypick the statement but to me they are all the same class of engines. It wouldn’t be very difficult for Pratt to update the F119 with new materials either of they didn’t have bigger and more important projects to work on.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I'm not trying to cherry pick or give you any grief. I'm trying to learn as much about this as I can. So now, as I understand, it is very likely that WS-15 has exceeded the F-119 as it currently sits in the F-22's but it should be just on par with or perhaps somewhat lesser than the F-135 or an undated version of the F-119, right?
F119 could be receiving undisclosed updates as part of its maintenance cycle so we really don’t know. But in general my view is the WS-15 should be treated as in the same tier/class as both the F135 and F119.
Indeed. If F-22 is receiving updates like the mirror coating I suspect that a lot of improvements have been happening under the hood as well.
I think the secret capabilities Patch was mentioning had to do with 30+ antenna bays it has. An absurd number for just RWR. I think the aircraft has very comprehensive ECM and ESM capabilities that aren't disclosed.
China should really not be investing in STOVL fighters. The world probably shouldn't, but the UK seems to have an obsession ever since the harrier. STOVL shortens the distance a fighter can travel considerably, since it burns so much fuel going vertical. In a modern battlefield that focuses on long range ballistics. You have to bring your carrier considerably closer to missile range since your planes can't fly as far. Yes you benefit from a smaller and cheaper carrier at the risk of losing distance. It's just a bad idea when China has hypersonics that can reach out and touch you. Against opponents that aren't USA and China I guess it's fine, but China isn't gearing up for war with countries that aren't USA. So STOVL is nothing but a liability.
*Edit: When I say shouldn't I mean shouldn't on their own. If for some weird reason Saudi Arabia suddenly wants to buy the Type 076 but insists on F-31s in a STOVL configuration and will pay billions for it's development. Then sure why not. But China shouldn't do it on it's own. Just like USA wouldn't have done it without the Harrier obsessed British people.
STOVL aircraft like F35 also have to carry the lift mechanism which is only used for <1% of the flight for the whole duration, taking up space and weight that could be used for weapons & fuel. That's why F35B has lower range and internal bombload that A or C variants.
I read posts of a few Royal Navy officers on Quora. They argue that CTOL to STOVL conversion is much easier than CTOL to CATOBAR conversion so by going for STOVL you eliminate an expensive training program and you can replenish pilots fast during wartime. They argue STOVL is the better option unless you are going to field 4+ carriers. They had to crash train a lot of pilots for Harriers during the Falklands War so they put a premium on fast trainability.
My opinion? V/STOL is dead end tech just like swing wing was. Comes with way too many compromises for supersonic non-mini aircraft and high costs. The F-35B is utterly complicated as people mentioned here. It would be a very expensive aircraft without some of the development wasn't being paid for by F-35A and C sales. China doesn't need to bother its LHDs with CV duties either. It has the industrial capacity to solve the problem by just building more actual carriers. I bet a few tech demonstrators existed for research purposes but I don't think they will push for procurement.
Not really, AECC is jointly owned by AVIC and COMAC, both are aircraft developers. The change was to make COMAC equal say as AVIC in the engine development. Before the change COMAC would have to rely on AVIC's roadmap for engines.